Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE US Geological Survey (USGS) Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: New Rules at USGS could amount to censorship

Unread postby basil_hayden » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 22:08:55

Ethics is legislated for LEPs; check out p.14: LEP regs

Obviously this doesn't cover yelling fire in a crowded theater, but it's funny how you can be on the hook for stuff you didn't release if things happen to go unpredictably during investigation and remediation. "Imminent danger" is the key phrase. Apparently developing expensive real estate on barrier islands does not fit the bill.

Let's face it - long emergencies don't fit the mold of an imminently dangerous event. Humans react to catastrophism not uniformitarianism. Take PO for example, if USGS is correct and peak is 2030, there may still be time to set up a soft landing. Instead it will be dealt with in 2035 or so...the scientists will be hung no matter how it turns out.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby frankthetank » Mon 08 Jun 2009, 20:26:21

All comes down to economics, physically it is probably there, but the cost to get it out becomes very expensive at some point.

Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey completed an extensive analysis of Wyoming's Gillette coal field, the nation's largest and most productive, and determined that less than 6% of the coal in its biggest beds could be mined profitably, even at prices higher than today's.

"We really can't say we're the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore," says Brenda Pierce, head of the USGS team that conducted the study.


The Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy, says it is reassessing its coal tally in light of the new Geological Survey data. It intends to create a new coal baseline from which it will begin its annual subtraction "as soon as we can," says William Watson, a member of the energy analysis team at EIA in Washington, D.C.


The agency began with the Powder River's rich Gillette coal field, an 80-mile-long strip in northeastern Wyoming that contains the nation's 10 top-producing mines. About one-third of all coal in the country is produced there. Some 1.2 million short tons leave the field daily, a river of coal filling more than 75 trains of 125 to 150 cars each.

For the Gillette study, USGS engineers, geologists and economists spent three years analyzing data from 10,200 drill holes, the most comprehensive study ever attempted of the region. The team concluded there are 201 billion short tons of coal in the Gillette field. Environmental rules and physical challenges put much of that out of reach, leaving what they figured were 77 billion short tons of recoverable coal.

Little is presently worth mining. Analyzing coal beds that contained 82% of the Gillette deposits, the team determined that with coal selling for $10.50 a ton, the prevailing price two years ago, less than 6% of the coal could be extracted profitably enough to leave mining companies an 8% rate of return.

If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.


Some interesting stuff here, a really good read.

Still a lot of coal left in the ground...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124414770220386457.html

EDIT:Looks like the link was changed and now u can't read the whole thing... Not sure how to get around that?
Last edited by frankthetank on Mon 08 Jun 2009, 22:16:40, edited 1 time in total.
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6192
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Re: USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Mon 08 Jun 2009, 21:18:44

The money quote:

If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.


In other words "you can't have your doom and eat it too!" :lol:
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby TheDude » Tue 09 Jun 2009, 01:11:15

When the paywall is blocking my way I just Google some of the text, and voila: WSJ: U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal - Seth's posterous

Thanks for the link, Frank.

Also worth reading: The Oil Drum | Richard Heinberg : Coal in the United States

Heinberg's working on a book on global coal supply.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: USGS figures

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 23:25:17

pstarr wrote:Can someone point me to a refutation of USGS's rosy assessment that peak won't occur for 20 years. I would much appreciate it. :)

pete


Nowadays, we can use just reality to discuss this concept, right pstarr?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re:

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 23:27:46

savethehumans wrote:USGS assessments:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Turns out the expected happened...Hubbert's intellectual descendants knew far more than peak oil "experts"! The real question now is whether or not the EIA 2037 number (already better than Colin Campbells estimate) can be broached as well!
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:59:16


Federal geologists will lead a push to reevaluate the total amount of recoverable oil near North Dakota’s Bakken formation, according to the state’s Senator John Hoeven. Hoeven requested the new analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey in an attempt to attract new investors to the shale play. The survey will now include 17 other formations in the state that could be commercially exploited using newly developed extraction technology. USGS deputy director William Werkheiser said the federal agency would work with "appropriate state and local officials and technical experts to ensure we develop the best possible product in a timely manner." Crude oil production in the Bakken shale in North Dakota has been experiencing some major challenges lately, but it is firmly on the growth path, said the state’s Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms in an interview for S&P Global Platts last


US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:00:34

They aren't going to evaluate Bakken reserves. These idiot reporters can't get anything right. Makes me wonder if they aren't peak oilers at heart, based on just the frequency with which they screw up the most basic oil field topics.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE US Geological Survey (USGS) Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 30 Apr 2019, 14:03:27

Officials discuss parameters of North Dakota oil study

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - A federal estimate of recoverable oil in North Dakota and the surrounding area needs to factor in more geologic formations and rapidly advancing technology, state and energy industry officials said Wednesday.

The U.S. Geological Survey has begun updating its estimate of recoverable oil and gas resources in the Williston Basin in North Dakota, eastern Montana and northwestern South Dakota. It expects to wrap up the effort by the end of the year, Energy Resource Program Coordinator Walter Guidroz said during a meeting with the officials to map out the best strategy for compiling the new estimate.

The USGS in 2013 estimated 7.4 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from the basin’s Bakken and underlying Three Forks shale formations, which encompass about 25,000 square miles within the Williston Basin. However, there are 17 other, smaller geologic formations that also show “significant” potential with new drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology, according to state Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms. Five have already been studied by state officials.

“They’ve identified maybe a billion barrels of oil potential,” Helms said.

North Dakota is already the nation’s second-leading producer of crude behind Texas, accounting for about 12 percent of U.S. production. The state saw record production in January of 1.4 million barrels daily. Almost all of that came from the Bakken and Three Forks, where technology advancements are enabling companies to extract more oil “than we ever thought possible,” Continental Resources Geologic Manager Tony Moss said.

“We’ve completely replaced our top 10 (producing) wells within about the last year and a half,” he said. “We’re really just getting to the point where we feel like we’re really starting to optimize development.”

Continental estimates as much as 40 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Bakken and Three Forks alone.

Sen. John Hoeven and industry officials asked the USGS in September 2017 for a new federal assessment, saying it could show stronger production potential.

“We have to continue to attract capital and investment not only to produce the resource but to get all the infrastructure we need to do it right,” Hoeven said Wednesday, detailing a laundry list of needs including pipelines, processing plants, roads, bridges, houses, stores and bigger airports.

The USGS in December 2017 committed to a study , which Guidroz said is now in the initial stages. There is no set budget for the study, he said.

____

This story has been corrected to show that officials are discussing the process for releasing estimates of oil resources and will release actual figures later, and that the Williston Basin is in eastern Montana, not western.

___

Follow Blake Nicholson on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/NicholsonBlake

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.


LINK
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15507
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests